If you are like me, you have probably heard the debate about an “eye for an eye” and how the Bible contradicts itself. I have done a little study on this and have come to the conclusion that it most certainly does not. Read on and you decide.
I will be using some of the same text to defend my pro-life stance in an upcoming article, so if your interested in that opinion as well, keep checking back.
The New Testament Eye for an eye
In the New Testament, Jesus is speaking to the crowds at the “sermon on the mount”. He tells them:
Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you. Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Jesus was clearly speaking to the crowd that they are to not retaliate, but should show patients and restraint. His reference to an, ‘Eye for eye’ is found in three places in the Old Testament which we will examine in a moment.
Jesus opens his statement referring to an ‘evil person’, not someone with good or even marginal intentions. He next refers to an act of violence. If we think of this action for a moment, striking on the cheek, could we say that this would have been reference to a ‘first blow’ to begin a fight? For clarification let’s consider it this way, Jesus is making a reference about a hot tempered or mean spirited person who is wanting to start a fight with you by slapping or punching your right cheek. You respond by striking back. Now, what has happened? We are in a full-blown fight! Tempers flare, anger, rage, one blow after another might be exchanged…exactly what the ‘evil person’ wanted to do. Sin is satisfied.
Now, consider what happens when you turn the other cheek. Will you get hit again? Probably, but it won’t be much fun for the guy hitting you since this is not the response he was trying to get, remember, he’s mad and wants to fight. To him it would be like hitting a tree; not much fun. He will eventually go away, mad probably, but he’ll go away. God is satisfied.
By turning the other cheek, you have shown great restraint, acted in a very responsible manner, and can walk away knowing you’ve done ‘the right thing’.
The Old Testament Eye for an eye
There are three references for the phrase ‘eye for an eye’ in the Old Testament that are the basis for the appearance of a discrepancy and contradiction in the Bible. I will attempt to compare and contrast these to the New Testament statement by Jesus, after which you should see that none of these three references could be confused with Jesus’ teaching and that all three of the Old Testament versus similarly relates to each other and to Jesus’ message of forgiveness.
Leading up to this section of the scripture, the Israelites are being lead from Egypt and they are in the desert at the base of Mount Sinai. God has given the Ten Commandments to Moses and has issued other laws that they are to follow to maintain a moral and orderly society.
We will first look at the passage in Exodus:
Exodus 21:23-26 “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
When you say this sentence aloud, does it make sense? We know what serious injury is, and we know how to take a life, an eye, and so on, but it really doesn’t make a lot of sense. If you look closely at the sentence, it begins with the word ‘but’. Our logical next question should be “Why is there a but?” The only way we can possibly answer this is to look backwards into the text to find out what preceded it.
Now, let’s look at the preceding verse to see what the verse is actually talking about:
Exodus 21:22-26 “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Clearly this is referring to a punishment through a court! It is not talking about an active hostile event. It also clearly spells out a given condition that must take place in order for a punishment to be required. This is not a retaliatory response.
Lets move on to Leviticus:
Leviticus 24:17-20 “If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution-life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured.”
Again, the verse is establishing a punishment for a court, not as a rule for retaliation.
Lastly, let’s look at Deuteronomy. This scripture really seems to clarify the Old Testament view and meaning quite well.
Deuteronomy 19:16-21 “If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”
What this scripture shows is that the phrase ‘eye for eye’ is an established guideline for the punishment for a given violation of the law. Again, it is not a retaliatory response to an act. The reference to judges, witness, investigation and testimony clearly establish a judicial proceeding and punishment in a governed society.
What this verse also includes over the other two verses is the inclusion of the purpose for the punishment.
“The rest of the people will hear of this…” Of this what?
The purging of the evil among you. Ok, why?
So they will “…be afraid”. Why?
So that “never again will such an evil thing be done among you”.
This is how a community protects itself .
The Conclusion
Is it possible that the people of Jesus’ time had taken the Old Testament laws and were using them as a way of seeking vengeance on another person, using the ‘laws’ to justify their personal actions? Since this still happens today, it could very likely have happened in those days.
Clearly the Old Testament scriptures are references to the judicial law in much the same way that our Constitution outlines specific law we are to follow. Imagine for a moment that every household in our society today enforced their own laws personally administering their own justice. A neighbor injures your child, so you walk across the street and injure your neighbor’s child. What a world that would be! I’m very certain I would not want to live there.
From all of this, regardless of how we perceive the message, we certainly know that it is consistent with the forgiveness message of all of Jesus’ teachings.
With the many things that Jesus was telling and instructing the people at the ‘sermon on the mount’, why is it that the ‘eye for eye’ issue seems to be the most questioned in today’s society? Could it be we have forgotten the commands to God’s people, and replaced them with our own?
